Air Force Refueling Aircraft Contract.

[two-niner]

It is great news that Boeing has won the contract to replace the old in-air refueling tankers.

That's 50,000 job for the states of Washington and Kansas.

This is the third attempt to issue the contract. The first was initially won by the European outfit commonly called Air Bus.

Senator John McCain, by sheer will, stopped that contract. There was a lot of reasons, the main one was we to be dependant on other countries for repair parts? We sold Iran all their aircraft and now they can not be maintained because we won't sell the repair parts. Do we want to be in Iran's situation? Of course not. The jobs also were high priority.

Senator McCain is a clear thinker and a great patriot.

Kerry

[bullheaded]

Quote:

Originally Posted by two-niner It is great news that Boeing has won the contract to replace the old in-air refueling tankers. That's 50,000 job for the states of Washington and Kansas. This is the third attempt to issue the contract. The first was initially won by the European outfit commonly called Air Bus. Senator John McCain, by sheer will, stopped that contract. There was a lot of reasons, the main one was we to be dependant on other countries for repair parts? We sold Iran all their aircraft and now they can not be maintained because we won't sell the repair parts. Do we want to be in Iran's situation? Of course not. The jobs also were high priority. Senator McCain is a clear thinker and a great patriot. Kerry

And it's a real shame that he doesn't have more control of the welfare of this great (barely free) country we live in.......just sayin.

[Wizard]

The contract will probably get killed anyway soon. Who's going to have to pay for them - ME AND YOU and I can't really afford one right now.

[frankdamp]

As a former Boeing guy, I'm glad that it didn't go to Airbus. Even if your'e not sure the Air Force needs so many tankers, you should recognise that most of the exisitng KC-135's are at least 20 years old and some date back to the late 1950's.

The 767-based airplane, updated to current (777/787) avionics and system standards will be a very good rig for the job. It fits the exisitng KC-135 infrastructure (hangar roof heights, ramp pavement weight limits) so there isn't a need for major civil engineering activity. The A-310 didn't fit.

Even though I'm an ex-pat Brit, I wasn't comfortable letting the French have this deal. They have been on-again, off-again "friends" and to give them an opportunity to hold a major strategically and tacticaly critical system hostage to some perceived political slight seemed foolish. After all, their contractual terminoligy doesn't differentiate between our definitions of "must" and "should".

Maybe it's a contract for more airplanes than are really needed, but that wasn't part of the RFP.

Good luck to Boeing and hurrah for a sensible resolution. It only took 10 years!

[FleetMan]

McCain killed the Boeing Tanker lease deal that was proposed more than 10 years ago, government employee, Boeing employee conflict of interest issues. His involvement in killing the initial award to EADS did not get too much, if any play in the Puget Sound area that I remember. The Boeing/EADS contract dispute after the contract was initially awarded to EADS got pretty involved as to who bid what and why, which airframe offered the most to the USAF, were features bid and promoted which were not in the contract, would new, modified or additional support facilities be required, etc. Much of that muddle plus the involvement of Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell sent the contract back to be redone and rebid. Politics played as big a role in this as anything else. As a former KC-135 crewmember, I am pleased to see that old war horse replaced by another Boeing product, an update which is far overdue. As a Boeing stock holder, I am happy the contract was awarded to TBC. The improvement in the local employment situation will be a real plus!

Also, if the United States is to be a world leader and a world power, the air refueling tanker force is vital to projecting that power on an international scale. No tankers, we are limited to a specified radius of action from any specific air field or we must have friends we can rely upon to use their facilities for recovery and refueling.

[Route 66]

I believe major military items should be made in the USA and the military should always have the latest and greatest.

[two-niner]

FleetMan: Good information. I kept the post as short as possible. There is a lot of credit to go around.

Go Dreamliner !

Kerry

[W4RLR]

Not too many people in the Gulf Coast area are happy. While the airframe would have been an Airbus A-310, the modifications would have been made by American workers using mostly American made parts in a plant in Mobile, Alabama. It would have been a shot in the arm for a region decimated by Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill.

As for Boeing being an "American" product, I suggest you research just where most of the components of the new Dreamliner are made. Here's a clue, it's NOT in the United States.

[Bob/Becky D - VA]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rray32539 Not too many people in the Gulf Coast area are happy. While the airframe would have been an Airbus A-310, the modifications would have been made by American workers using mostly American made parts in a plant in Mobile, Alabama. It would have been a shot in the arm for a region decimated by Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill. As for Boeing being an "American" product, I suggest you research just where most of the components of the new Dreamliner are made. Here's a clue, it's NOT in the United States.

If you have followed the whole sordid situation, you will find that Boeing first tryed ripping off the public with their leasing program and people went to jail for it, not a simple conflict of interest, as some have suggested. Then Boeing lost a fair and open competition with Airbus and Northrup Grumman. Not happy with that they brought in their lobbiests and paid politicians and had the award nullified. Finially they have "won." Great example of much of what is wrong in this county now.

I agree with you RRAY. Bet there are as many, or more, foriegn componets in the Boeing solution as there was in the Airbus proposal. Bottom line was Boeing paid out more to the lobbiests and politicians.

Really sad situation.

Bob

[Hooligan]

The media in this area has been really supporting the Northrup-Grumman contract (who airbus?) and it's benefit to the economy here and in Mobile. Also very critical of the political maneuvering and scandals involved. No one knows what gives the most bang for the buck, or who will use the most or fewest American parts or workers....
Never look behind the curtain